Relief/Michael Barnett/Department of Children and Families :
HB 6515 is a claims bill that provides relief to Michael Barnett, individually and as the natural parent and legal guardian of R.B., arising from the Department of Children and Families’ handling of a domestic violence-related child welfare investigation. The bill’s findings describe a 2010 case involving repeated police responses, prior threats by Patrick Dell, and a DCF investigation that was closed after the department concluded the children were not at significant risk of harm. The preamble states that the department’s errors and omissions contributed to the failure to act on warning signs before the fatal shootings and severe injury that followed.
The bill appropriates $296,400 from the General Revenue Fund to DCF to pay Barnett and R.B. It directs the Chief Financial Officer to issue the payment and states that the award, together with any payment under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, is intended to be the sole compensation for all present and future claims arising from the incident. The bill also caps attorney fees at 25 percent of the total amount awarded and takes effect upon becoming law.
If enacted, HB 6515 would create a specific statutory appropriation from state general revenue to satisfy a judgment and settle claims tied to DCF’s alleged negligence in a child protection matter. It would not broadly amend child welfare law, but it would operate as a private relief act under Florida’s claims bill process, authorizing payment outside the ordinary appropriations framework and limiting further recovery for the same underlying facts. The bill directly affects the Department of Children and Families, the Chief Financial Officer, and the named claimants, Michael Barnett and R.B.
The bill appears to have been introduced as a remedial measure to compensate victims for a tragic failure in state child protection oversight, and the text itself is strongly sympathetic to the claimants. However, the legislative outcome suggests limited support or prioritization in the budget process, as the bill died in the Budget Committee on June 16, 2025. No committee transcripts or recorded votes are available in the provided context, so the broader legislative sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s framing and its failure to advance.
The central point of contention is whether the Department of Children and Families should be held financially responsible for alleged investigative failures in a highly tragic and fact-specific domestic violence case. Supporters would likely emphasize the repeated warning signs, prior police calls, and the department’s decision to close the case despite apparent risk, while opponents or skeptics may focus on the difficulty of assigning liability, the extraordinary nature of a private claims bill, and the use of state funds to pay a judgment arising from a decades-old incident. The bill’s death in the Budget Committee suggests that fiscal concerns, claims-bill scrutiny, or competing budget priorities may have limited its progress.